Larger that average quarter

JJ69 · March 26, 2006 3:19PM

I found this thing last summer, and didn't think much about it, until recently attempting to put it in a tube with other silver quarters. It wouldn't fit, and upon comparing it to other quarters, saw why. It has a larger diameter than other quarters.
It wouldn't go in the tube that other quarters were happily sitting in, and if you hold this quarter and another between your thumb and finger, the other quarter will slip right out.
The quarter shows no signs at all of being artifically flattened to increase its diameter.
It shows no signs of undergoing any stress at all to make it a freak. No signs of being exposed to fire/high heat at all, and it certainly has not been pounded.
Its reeded edge is perfect, it appears to be the same height as a normal quarter, and it weighs the same as a normal silver quarter, 6.2 grams.
Its hard to tell if the mind is playing tricks here, but it also seems that all of the lettering and everything is also slightly larger.
I don't have a micrometer so don't know the exact difference.
Appears to be at least a full 1/16th of an inch, as you can place it on a normal quarter and see the rim of the freak all the way around on the bottom.
I'm stumped. Heres the scans of obverse and reverse next to a normal quarter [1954].
So what do you think ?

lordmarcovan · March 26, 2006 6:34PM

Interesting.

grip · March 27, 2006 6:05AM

There's a 10 yr spread.The 64 may still have the reading,and the 54 is most likly
worn down.? What does it weigh?

Al

JJ69 · March 27, 2006 6:41AM

Well, I just took a random "normal" quarter for comparison.
I could have used any other Washington quarter and the effect would be the same, worn or MS.
This quarter will not fit into a quarter tube that any other quarter will fit into, so it is bigger no doubt about it - But not so big as to suggest
an incorrect planchet ... Which still would not explain the larger lettering even if it was a half planchet.
You can see by the pic that the lettering and in fact everything is slightly larger than usual.
It weighs the same as a normal silver quarter, 6.2 g's.
A mystery to me.

JJ69 · March 27, 2006 4:30PM

Heres a couple more pics, on next to a normal 64, and the other of it refusing to join other quarters in a quarter tube.
Oh by the way, the pic on the bottom scan is reversed. I can never remember to flip them right to make the scans match up.

millennium · March 27, 2006 10:17PM

Can you take a pic of the edge of the bigger quarter?...As close as you can...

braddick · March 28, 2006 1:47AM

"Texas Dollar"

These were altered via either thick leather straps or wood planks and rubber mallets and tons of patience.

It all started with engineers competing against themselves to see who could enlarge a Morgan dollar without distorting the details.

I own one and it is remarkable. I also have a Kennedy half (same year as your quarter) that appears perfect yet 20% larger than its counterpart.

JJ69 · March 28, 2006 5:53AM

<< <i>Can you take a pic of the edge of the bigger quarter?...As close as you can... >>

There ya go. The reeding appears uniform and almost perfect all the way around.
I suppose the "Texas Dollar" theory might well be valid, though its hard to beleive that such uniform results could be achieved
while leaving the reeding apparently intact.

Smitty79 · March 28, 2006 6:20AM

Heh, that's some big money.

Couldn't resist.

millennium · March 28, 2006 7:54AM

I was looking at the reeding to see if it was perfectly verticle. It looks like it is slanting ever so slightly, indicating that is has been altered in some fashion. I have to agree with the "Texas" theory...

goldrush00013 · March 28, 2006 8:32AM

tsacch · March 30, 2006 10:16PM

Braddick, how bout some pix of those Texass coins.

pontiacinf · April 3, 2006 9:18AM

<< <i>"Texas Dollar"

These were altered via either thick leather straps or wood planks and rubber mallets and tons of patience.

It all started with engineers competing against themselves to see who could enlarge a Morgan dollar without distorting the details.

I own one and it is remarkable. I also have a Kennedy half (same year as your quarter) that appears perfect yet 20% larger than its counterpart. >>

thanks for sharing that tid bit pat, as I find that very interesting. I guess one could say it's the oposite of what bert does:

Bert Hickman

grip · April 3, 2006 10:38AM

They were also available in the reverse.About 25% of the original size?(small)
Al

pontiacinf · April 3, 2006 9:36PM

<< <i>They were also available in the reverse.About 25% of the original size?(small)
Al >>

depends on the juice bert throws at it.

talk about a big-bang

dcamp78 · April 5, 2006 3:55PM

Did you notice that the 2 quarters are from different mints? It looks like the larger one is from Denver
and the other would be from Philadelphia. Maybe the mint made a couple strikes before they realized
that the size was too large?

goldrush00013 · April 8, 2006 4:30AM

Hey! I see you have some silver guitar picks. Cool!

JJ69 · April 8, 2006 4:53AM

<< <i>Hey! I see you have some silver guitar picks. Cool!

Yeah I've always been a fan of metal on metal. I used to use pennies and nickels for pics before I got the pic shaped quarters.

arlea1957 · April 9, 2006 9:18PM

I have a morgan dollar with the same scenario it is too big to fit into a round. I sent it off to Van Allen and he stated that although it was larger it is still in the realm of normal....

nice find..

Larger that average quarter

Comments

Categories